Case Analysis Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd Essay

IntroductionThe Classification amongst an strong-minded contractor and employee has raise a reckon of issues by means ofout the past 50 years. Failing to pass water an effective formality to be applied by the motor inns to any crabby case, it has lead to commercial uncertainty through Australia. This essay get out digest Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) one hundred sixty CLR 16 closing projecting the high motor inn process in distinguishing between whether there was an kinship between the employer of employer/employee or employer/ separate contractor. concomitantsWhile motioning for Brodribb Sawmilling Co, Stevens and antiquated were employed by Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd as a trucker and snigger. During 1985, while Gray was moving a Log onto Stevens truck, the log fell off and rolled off the truck, as a result, Stevens was injured1. These truckers and sniggers employ their own vehicles, worked during the time they set out, were paid by the amount of timbe r delivered and did non deduct income tax installments2. Both employees owned and utilise their own equipment and vehicles, were never guaranteed work from the Sawmill3 and were free to seek former(a) work if factors such as the weather prevented them from working4.Issue1. To establish whether Gray and Stevens were employees or supreme contractors while employed by Sawmilling Co.Rationale DecidendiThe reasoned principle that the High Court applied in Stevens5, in regards to employee/independent contractor, was the multiple indicia political campaign. This test is drilld to identify a number of criteria that the court can use, when distinguishing between employees or contractors. In regards to Stevens, understand was weighed as the satisfying factor when deciding between employee/contractor during the case.Judgement and abstractStevens6 was held in favour of Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd, classifying the twain as independent contractors through the application of the indicia. The test was originally established in 1968 in the UK 7, recognising a number of criteria to be used when assessing relationships. The test was established in chemical reaction to a collapse of the previous test, the control test, which had been found to be more suited to the social conditions of earlier times, becoming obsolete in sophisticated society8. It was found that due to technological developments, the control test had become ill-matched with the retention of effective control9, as employees skills now exceed that of their employers 10. This meant by apply the application of the indicia test, Stevens would be able to determine the relationship between the two thespians.When applying the test in Stevens, the outcome of the courts decision failed to clarify which criteria was to be used when determining future cases. Stevens had adapted its ratio from previous cases, looking at the whole relationship between the individuals, making a decision on balance11 through the ap plication of the particular criteria the relationship of master and servant, mode of remuneration, purvey and maintenance of equipment, obligation to work, hours or work, deduction of income tax and the delegation of work by the employee12.This left a problem open for interpretation, the charge that the court applied to the different indicia on any particular case13. Previous cases earlier Stevens offered little help in defining the relationship between the employer and contractor, as the intelligent concept remains largely undefined except in terms of the various indicia, which varies between cases 14. In modern society legion(predicate) employers dont process the knowledge to be able to control their employees what to do, failing to address distinction between the relationship between employer/employee15. Stevens decision used control as the significant factor when determining control, advisement the balance in favor that they were contractors. Therefore, when attempting to make a judgement between employee/contractor, it can be misleading for future cases where control isnt the significant factor, as it is no more than a guide to the existence of the relationship between master and servant.Furthermore, Stevens was self-employed, therefore in performing his contract, he used his own tools, which indicates that he was not a servant16. However, Stevens places too little violence on what defines a contractors tools, which was seen in 2001 Hollis v Vabu17. The court applied the legal principles held in Stevens18, however held that the courier was an employee, not a contractor. Although the couriers provided their own tools and equipment, it rattling involved little capital outlay as such tools were not only capable for use as a courier, but could be used for other general purposes19. This provides a great example of the weight that Hollis places on another particular criteria that the test, when applied in Stevens, was able to effectively establish whether they were contractors, but left much open, leading to commercial uncertainty. restore on Subsequent CasesThe impacts that followed Stevens20 saw major changes in the Industrial dealing form 1988, the old-age pension take in charge Act 1992 and the liability to deduct be as your earn installments21. Businesses started avoiding the statutory obligations owed to their employees, saving up to 17% by classifying its employees as contractors22. Consequently an entirely new industry rose, attempting to take utility of the multi-test, structuring their business so it appe ard to be one of employer to independent contractor, then employer to employee23. The consequences of this was subsequently seen in Vabu v Taxation24, having avoided lodging superannuation guarantee statements, Vabu was found illegal of avoiding the minimum level of payment of superannuation for all of its couriers25.Future and commercial message implicationsThe commercial implications that arose form Ste vens26 found large corporations using the capacity of the Multi-Test to derogate social wage costs, providing legal validation for the businesses to classify employees as contractors27. These individuals became ease employees, still under the control of these corporations, with the formality of freedom as an unreal trap28.Therefore this has meant, that by applying Stevens multi-factor test, more times than less, the type of worker will be classified as an independent contractor, which means they will only have limited rights under the Act 29. By wrongfully labeling employees, it can have potentially serious consequences for the employer, opening up claims for foul dismissal, vicarious liability, potential prosecution and financial penalties, particular in regard to companys failure to pay tax30. The effect of Stevens has meant that many businesses argon now exposed to having to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars back to the government from past taxes31. goalIn conclusion t here seems that the Multi-Indicia test is without its faults, but it is without doubt that Stevens32 was an independent contractor. However without further legislation, further developments in regard to the employee or independent contractor will be limited to the interpretation of the test by future judges, as businesses will try and continue to avoid payments and needed benefits to its employees.BibliographyCase law of natureFederal Commissioner for Taxation v J Walter Thompson Pty Ltd (1944) 69 CLR 227 (at 231)Hollis V Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 21Jackson & Wilson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (1997) 42 AILR 3-658Leichhardt Municipal Council v. Montgomery (2005) NSWCA 432 bring in Mixed Concrete ( second East) Ltd v parson of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) 2 QB 497Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) one hundred sixty CLR 16Translators Agency Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2011) FCA 366Vabu Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 81 IR 150Vabu Pty Ltd V FC 96 ATC 4898Zuijs v Wirth Bros Pty Ltd (1955) 93 CLR 561Legislationfair Work Act 2009 (Cth)Independent Contractors Bill 2006 (Cth)Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)Articles/Books/ daybooksCarrigan, F. A Blast From the past The revivification of Legal cant (2003) 27 (1) Melbourne University Law study 186-199Catanzanti, J. Two limbed test distinguishes employees from contractors (2011) 49 (6) Law Society journal 52-56Chan, T. E. Organisational Liability in a health care system (2010) 18 (3) Torts Law daybook, 228Chin, D. Losing Control the Difference Between Employees and Independent Contractors after Vabu v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 52 Law Society Journal 52De Plevitz, L. reliant Contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb encourage workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of engineering science Law Journal 263-275Franklin, G., Lilburne, R. Joint mesh Possibl e pitfalls with the use of labor movement guide in the resources industry (2005) Australian Mining and oil colour Law connecter yearbook 275-299Gava, J., Another beep from the past or why the left should twitch strict legalism a reply to Frank Carrigan 27 (1) (2003) Melbourne University Law Review 186-199Jay, D. J. Employees and Independent contractors, (1999) 73 Australian Law Journal Volume 30-34Lockton, D. Employment Law (4th ed. 2005) 137Marshall, B. Working it out Employee or independent contractor (2006) 12 (5) The National Legal Eagle 14-19Nieuwenhuysen, J. Towards flexibility in academic labour markets? (1985) 11 Australian Bulletin of Labour 271-81Steckfuss, K. The Regulation of Unpaid Superannuation Contributions The Inspector-General of Taxations Review into the ATOs Administration of the Superannuation Guarantee Charge (2011) 24 (3) Australian Journal of Labour Law 281-294Stuhmcke, A. all-important(a) Tort Law (2nd ed 2001)Terry, A. and Ginugni D. Business and t he law (5th ed 2009) 819- 8-20Vincent, R. What are the tax effects of incorporating legal practises? (2002) The Law Society of New South Wales 45Other SourcesAustralian Government, Fair Work Independent contractors and Employees Fact Sheet (2012) at 15 May 2012Australian Government, Facts sheets Independent Contractors (2012) http//www.abcc.gov.au/Factsheets/Independentcontractors/Pages/AmIanIndependentContractor.aspx> at 16 May 2012Australian Government, Independent Contractors The Essential Handbook (2012) at 12 May 2012pic1 De Plevitz, L. subject contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of applied science Law Journal 263-275 2 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 3 Gava, J., Another blast from the past or why the left should embrace strict legalism a reply to Frank Carrigan 27 (1) (2003) Melbourne University Law Review 186-199 4 De Plevitz, L. Dependent contractors can the t est from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 263-275 5 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 166 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 7 Ready Mixed Concrete (South East) Ltd v Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (1968) 2 QB 497 8 De Plevitz, L. Dependent contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers 9 Carrigan, F. A Blast From the Past The Resurgence of Legal Formalism (2003) 27 (1) Melbourne University Law Review 186-199 10 De Plevitz, L. Dependent contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 263-275 11 Australian Government, Facts sheets Independent Contractors (2012) 12 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 13 Terry, A. and Ginugni D. Business and the law (5th ed 2009) 819- 8-20 14 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 15 Stuhmcke, A. Essential Tort Law (2nd ed 2001)16 Franklin, G., Lilburne, R. Joint Employment Possible pitfalls with the use of labour hire in the resources industry (2005) Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Association Yearbook 275-299 17 Hollis V Vabu Pty Ltd (2001) 207 CLR 2118 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 19 Franklin, G., Lilburne, R. Joint Employment Possible pitfalls with the use of labour hire in the resources industry (2005) Australian Mining and Petroleum Law Association Yearbook 275-299 20 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 21 Jay, D. J. Employees and Independent contractors, (1999) 73 Australian Law Journal Volume 30-34 22 De Plevitz, L. Dependent contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 263-275 23 De Plevitz, L. Dependent contractors can the test from Stevens v Brodribb protect workers who are quasi-employees? (1997) 13 Queensland University of Technology Law Journal 263-275 24 Vabu Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 81 IR 15025 Catanzanti, J. Two limbed test distinguishes employees from contractors (2011) 49 (6) Law Society Journal 52-56 26 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16 27 Carrigan, F. A Blast From the Past The Resurgence of Legal Formalism (2003) 27 (1) Melbourne University Law Review 186-199 28 Carrigan, F. A Blast From the Past The Resurgence of Legal Formalism (2003) 27 (1) Melbourne University Law Review 186-199 29 Catanzanti, J. Two limbed test distinguishes employees from contractors (2011) 49 (6) Law Society Journal 52-56 30 Jackson & Wilson v Monadelphous Engineering Associates Pty Ltd (1997) 42 AILR 3-658 31 Translators Agency Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2011) FCA 366 32 Stevens V Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16